A Refutation of Occam's Razor and it's validity to SCIENCE!

[Theophage]

So, over in the thread on the meaninglessness of Naturalism (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=245505), LeoM offered
THIS (http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page3.htm) link as to why Occam's razor is invalid reasoning. Instead of further derailing that thread, I'd like to address the (bad) reasoning in that link here.

In the next post...

[LeoM]

So, over in the thread on the meaninglessness of Naturalism (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=245505), LeoM offered
THIS (http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page3.htm) link as to why Occam's razor is invalid reasoning. Instead of further derailing that thread, I'd like to address the (bad) reasoning in that link here.

In the next post...

Occam's razor has nothing to do with the paranormal only the natural which was the main point.

[figuer]

I have no interest in discussing that link...it is irrelevant to a discussion of Occam's Razor.

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

This is quite reasonable....but pay attention to the underlined section. When things are not equal (difference in evidence being accepted for instance), the concept of 'simplest' is meaningless.

[Theophage]

First of all, there's this sentence:

Originally, it began as a principle in physics having to do with parsimony, but somehow got twisted into a mantra for invalidating paranormal claims.

It is still about parsimony. In fact, that's all it's about! It is a shame (for paranormalists) that every paranormal claim to date has been unparsimonious and thus cut by the razor, but that is not the fault of science.

For those of you who are against Occam's razor, are you also against the idea of parsimony? Why or why not? How do they differ?

Next we get to the actual numbered reasons why the razor is supposedly bad reasoning:

1) First of all, Occam’s Razor, termed by 14th Century logician and friar William of Occam, refers to a concept that states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It was not intended to be used to evaluate claims of the paranormal as skeptics today use it for.

The article then goes on to quote a physicist about the fact that the razor doesn't always apply. Can I say "Duh?" Yes, it is true that the razor does not always apply. Where it does apply, it leads to good reasoning. Where it does not apply, it doesn't.

To use an analogy, water is good for making things wet, not so good at making things dry. Whenever you try to use something for what it is not intended, you'll end up with less than optimal results. But where does Occam's razor apply and where does it not? The article itself gives that answer:

To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments.

In other words, given some effect X, and two different models of the cause of that effect, A and B, if A invokes more entities needlessly than B, then B is more likely to be correct.

When doesn't the razor apply? Also found in the same quote:

Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended…

What does having "different predictions" have to do with it? Different predictions means that there is a testable difference between two explanations. If there is a testable difference between two things, the test should determine which is true or false! Can I say "Duh" again? Occam's Razor is only used when there isn't (or isn't currently) a testable difference. Anbd testable differences are what has killed every paranormal explanation for anything to date.

More from the article in the next post...

[Theophage]

I have no interest in discussing that link...it is irrelevant to a discussion of Occam's Razor.

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

This is quite reasonable....but pay attention to the underlined section. When things are not equal (difference in evidence being accepted for instance), the concept of 'simplest' is meaningless.

Thanks figuer, and I agree with you 100%. But I can only type so fast...


Edited to add: As it applies to the explanation of thoughts in the other thread, the fact that there is no good evidence (i.e. testable difference) between the explanation that thoughts originate in the brain, and that thoughts are merely conducted through the brain, Occam's razor applies and says that the first explanation is more likely correct. When we are able to make a testable difference by actually being able to see thoughts as particular patterns and watch them as they form, then the evidence will stand on its own, no razor needed.

[GenesisNemesis]

Occam's razor has nothing to do with the paranormal only the natural which was the main point.

Entirely subjective.

[LeoM]

First of all, there's this sentence:

Originally, it began as a principle in physics having to do with parsimony, but somehow got twisted into a mantra for invalidating paranormal claims.

It is still about parsimony. In fact, that's all it's about! It is a shame (for paranormalists) that every paranormal claim to date has been unparsimonious and thus cut by the razor, but that is not the fault of science.

For those of you who are against Occam's razor, are you also against the idea of parsimony? Why or why not? How do they differ?

Next we get to the actual numbered reasons why the razor is supposedly bad reasoning:



The article then goes on to quote a physicist about the fact that the razor doesn't always apply. Can I say "Duh?" Yes, it is true that the razor does not always apply. Where it does apply, it leads to good reasoning. Where it does not apply, it doesn't.

To use an analogy, water is good for making things wet, not so good at making things dry. Whenever you try to use something for what it is not intended, you'll end up with less than optimal results. But where does Occam's razor apply and where does it not? The article itself gives that answer:



In other words, given some effect X, and two different models of the cause of that effect, A and B, if A invokes more entities needlessly than B, then B is more likely to be correct.

When doesn't the razor apply? Also found in the same quote:

Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended…

What does having "different predictions" have to do with it? Different predictions means that there is a testable difference between two explanations. If there is a testable difference between two things, the test should determine which is true or false! Can I say "Duh" again? Occam's Razor is only used when there isn't (or isn't currently) a testable difference. Anbd testable differences are what has killed every paranormal explanation for anything to date.

More from the article in the next post...

Are you sure? many scientists have come to the conclusion that fraud, deception etc cannot explain away the data for survival such as credible cases of apparitions, the cross correspondences, deathbed visions, poltergeist phenomena, psi phenomena. Now with the fact that normal explanations cannot account for a lot of paranormal phenomena there is of course another explanation and that is super psi talked about here as an alternative to the survival hypothesis.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/04/superpsi_me.html

[GenesisNemesis]

Are you sure? many scientists have come to the conclusion that fraud, deception etc cannot explain away the data for survival such as credible cases of apparitions, the cross correspondences, deathbed visions, poltergeist phenomena, psi phenomena.

All of those things have either no evidence whatsoever to support them or flimsy evidence, at best.

[Theophage]

Occam's razor has nothing to do with the paranormal only the natural which was the main point.

Occam's razor has EVERYTHING to do with choosing between competing explanations of some phenomenon, which is exactly the point.

[LeoM]

Occam's razor has nothing to do with the paranormal only the natural which was the main point.

Occam's razor has EVERYTHING to do with choosing between competing explanations of some phenomenon, which is exactly the point.

True but normal explanations for a lot of the evidence in support of survival do not fit the facts.

[LeoM]

Are you sure? many scientists have come to the conclusion that fraud, deception etc cannot explain away the data for survival such as credible cases of apparitions, the cross correspondences, deathbed visions, poltergeist phenomena, psi phenomena.

All of those things have either no evidence whatsoever to support them or flimsy evidence, at best.

Coming from someone who is a committed materialist and can't look outside of it.

[figuer]

Occam's razor has EVERYTHING to do with choosing between competing explanations of some phenomenon, which is exactly the point.That doesn't mean it works in choosing the correct explanation.

[Theophage]

Are you sure? many scientists have come to the conclusion


Really Leo? Many scientists? How many? Are they a majority or a minority? Why aren't their views considered mainstream? I think it is because they are a small minority who don;t have enough evidence for their ideas to become mainstream.

... that fraud, deception etc cannot explain away the data for survival such as credible cases of apparitions, the cross correspondences, deathbed visions, poltergeist phenomena, psi phenomena.

And many that say those things can explain it. Where is the majority of the evidence? On what side of the argument is the mainstream? Science isn't a popularity contest, and every scientific theory that is now accepted had its vigorous detractors. But the perponderance of evidence wins in science, and it currently falls against your claims. I'm sorry, if you want mainstream acceptance, get more and better evidence.

Now with the fact that normal explanations cannot account for a lot of paranormal phenomena there is of course another explanation and that is super psi talked about here as an alternative to the survival hypothesis.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/04/superpsi_me.html

I hope this link has some good evidence in it, but I'm guessing it probably doesn't. It'll take me a while to read it.

[GenesisNemesis]

Coming from someone who is a committed materialist and can't look outside of it.

Of course I can't look outside of it, and you can't either. The material is anything anyone sees, at any time. I would have to be extremely thick not to see out of it.

[Theophage]

Occam's razor has EVERYTHING to do with choosing between competing explanations of some phenomenon, which is exactly the point.That doesn't mean it works in choosing the correct explanation.

Again you are correct, figuer, but in a roundabout way. In no form does Occam's razor state that the "simplest" explanation must be the correct one. The razor is an inductive rule, not a deductive one. (Science itself is inductive rather than deductive) It can only help us determine what is more or less likely to be true, not what must or must not be true. You and I seem to be talking past each other here.

[LeoM]

Coming from someone who is a committed materialist and can't look outside of it.

Of course I can't look outside of it, and you can't either. The material is anything anyone sees, at any time. I would have to be extremely thick not to see out of it.

I did not mean it that way I mean is take consciousness seriously not as a illusion generated by the brain but as something more.

[Theophage]

Getting back to the article in the OP, we read this little gem:

Even Isaac Newton didn’t use Occam’s Razor like the skeptics of today do. His version of it was

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” (see same Physics FAQ)

Obviously, he was referring to explanations to explain natural phenomena, not paranormal or supernatural phenomena!

The biggest hurdle facing the explanation of paranormal or supernatural phenomena is just showing that it exists, let alone getting around to competing explanations of what causes it. And skeptics of today use the razor exactly how it is supposed to be used, just like Newton above. Things like does the mind survive death? Where do thoughts come from? Where does morality, life, and the universe come from? Sorry supernaturalists, but so far your record for correct explainations is exactly ZERO.

Let's move on to point #2 of why Occam's razor is invalid, shall we?

2) Second, what is “simpler” is often relative.

Not in the cases where the razor is relevant. Let's look at a classic example, the origin of the universe: Explanation #1: God created the universe; God has always existed. Explanation #2: The universe has always existed.

Regardless of how you feel about either explanation, is there confusion about which explanation requires more entities? Obviously #1 does. Thus by the razor, #2 is simpler. See, that wasn't hard! For bonus points, can you tell me under what conditions the razor would or would not apply to the above two explanations? (And you thought there wouldn't be any homework...)

[Theophage]

Moving on to point three of the web article:

3) Third, even if we take Occam’s Razor at face value the way skeptics use it, just because one explanation is more likely doesn’t mean that it’s always the correct one.

And we have a winner, folks! Finally, the daft author of that article gets something right. It is true that just because something is more likely to be true it doesn't mean that it is true.

For example, it is more likely that the sun will rise tomorrow in the East than that it won't (or rise in the west, etc.) does this mean that this absolutely has to be true? No! Something could destroy the Earth tonight, and the sun indeed won't rise for us in the east. But when we are looking for what to believe in, what is reasonable or not, what is the closest thing to "true" that we humans can get to things which we don't know for sure, all we have is what is or isn't more likely. Isn't that like, Philosophy 101?

Finally, we will have to end our dissection of the anti-razor article here, as point #4 doesn't really have anything to do with Occam's razor being invalid, it is just the author randomly bitching about how skeptics won't believe in paranormal things. I know, my pillow is wetting itself as we speak. So let me end this by saying that it is not some anti-supernatural bias which keeps their wacky personal ideas about things out of mainstream science, it is a pro-reason and evidence bias. I'm sorry for the inconvenience...

[LeoM]

Getting back to the article in the OP, we read this little gem:

Even Isaac Newton didn’t use Occam’s Razor like the skeptics of today do. His version of it was

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” (see same Physics FAQ)

Obviously, he was referring to explanations to explain natural phenomena, not paranormal or supernatural phenomena!

The biggest hurdle facing the explanation of paranormal or supernatural phenomena is just showing that it exists, let alone getting around to competing explanations of what causes it. And skeptics of today use the the razor exactly how it is supposed to be used, just like Newton above. Things like does the mind survive death? Where do thoughts come from? Where does morality, life, and the universe come from? Sorry supernaturalists, but so far your record for correct explainations is exactly ZERO.

Let's move on to point #2 of why Occam's razor is invalid, shall we?

2) Second, what is “simpler” is often relative.

Not in the cases where the razor is relevant. Let's look at a classic example, the origin of the universe: Explanation #1: God created the universe; God has always existed. Explanation #2: The universe has always existed.

Regardless of how you feel about either explanation, is there confusion about which explanation requires more entities? Obviously #1 does. Thus by the razor, #2 is simpler. See, that wasn't hard! For bonus points, can you tell me under what conditions the razor would or would not apply to the above two explanations? (And you thought there wouldn't be any homework...)


But physics is not complete also if the universe always existed we need to prove that is so one way is the postulate the many world's interpretation which postulates quadrillions of universes compared to a god explanation which requires 1 other reality tell me what is simpler there? But at least paranormalist's take consciousness seriously unlike materialist's who assume that the brain produces consciousness in approximately the same way that the liver produces bile.

[Theophage]

But physics is not complete


Correct, it is not complete, but that still doesn't give any weight to things which don't have sufficient evidence of their existence, like Gods, angels, telepathy, underwear gnomes, luminiferous aether, etc. If such things do exist, they will give sufficient evidence of themselves, and they will be accepted by mainstream science because of that. But I'm not holding my breath...

also if the universe always existed we need to prove that is so

Really? It seems to me that it is the default condition. Again, science agrees with me...

one way is the postulate the many world's interpretation which postulates quadrillions of universes compared to a god explanation which requires 1 other reality tell me what is simpler there?

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is only one interpretation, there are others. Why do you feel science is stuck with that one? Also, I fail to see how the MWI proves that the universe always existed, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

Is the MWI a simpler explanation than God? Maybe, and I'll explain why:

Even if God exists, we still need an explanation of Quantum Mechanics. Thus, the two choices may very well be (1) God + MWI + the universe, or (2) MWI + the universe. I would still say that (2) is simpler, and I think you will agree. This all goes back to point 1 above. The razor only applies if there are no testable differences, and if we are talking about the same results. If we are talking about different things, i.e. is the MWI the correct explanation for QM, does the MWI prove that the universe is uncaused, and does the MWI replace God, then clearly the razor can not apply here to all options at once. If you're still confused, I'll try to explain again.

But at least paranormalist's take consciousness seriously unlike materialist's who assume that the brain produces consciousness in approximately the same way that the liver produces bile.

How is that not taking consciousness seriously? Are you saying we don't take bile seriously? You're really losing me here...

[figuer]

Not in the cases where the razor is relevant. Let's look at a classic example, the origin of the universe: Explanation #1: God created the universe; God has always existed. Explanation #2: The universe has always existed.

Regardless of how you feel about either explanation, is there confusion about which explanation requires more entities? Obviously #1 does. Thus by the razor, #2 is simpler.
So? It being simpler indicates nothing of its validity, thus proving the irrelevance of Occam's Razor in determining the value of a proposition.

[LeoM]

But physics is not complete


Correct, it is not complete, but that still doesn't give any weight to things which don't have sufficient evidence of their existence, like Gods, angels, telepathy, underwear gnomes, luminiferous aether, etc. If such things do exist, they will give sufficient evidence of themselves, and they will be accepted by mainstream science because of that. But I'm not holding my breath...



Really? It seems to me that it is the default condition. Again, science agrees with me...



The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is only one interpretation, there are others. Why do you feel science is stuck with that one? Also, I fail to see how the MWI proves that the universe always existed, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

Is the MWI a simpler explanation than God? Maybe, and I'll explain why:

Even if God exists, we still need an explanation of Quantum Mechanics. Thus, the two choices may very well be (1) God + MWI + the universe, or (2) MWI + the universe. I would still say that (2) is simpler, and I think you will agree. This all goes back to point 1 above. The razor only applies if there are no testable differences, and if we are talking about the same results. If we are talking about different things, i.e. is the MWI the correct explanation for QM, does the MWI prove that the universe is uncaused, and does the MWI replace God, then clearly the razor can not apply here to all options at once. If you're still confused, I'll try to explain again.

But at least paranormalist's take consciousness seriously unlike materialist's who assume that the brain produces consciousness in approximately the same way that the liver produces bile.

How is that not taking consciousness seriously? Are you saying we don't take bile seriously? You're really losing me here...

No it's belittling consciousness i don't think it's the correct approach to take.

It's stuck with that because number one it looks like a increasing number of physicists are taking this idea seriously. There also appears to be cosmological observation that also support it according to Max Tegmark.

[Theophage]

So? It being simpler indicates nothing of its validity, thus proving the irrelevance of Occam's Razor in determining the value of a proposition.

I'm sorry figuer, but me and reason are going to have to disagree with you here. It seems obvious to me, but apparently it isn't obvious to everyone.

[skepticalbip]

I'm afraid that I don't really understand the dispute. Occam's Razor is not a law, hypothesis, theorem, etc. It is simply an observation that, in general, evoking causes or forces (especially unknown causes or forces) that are unnecessary to explain an occurrence is, duh... unnecessary.

At least that's my understanding.

[figuer]

I'm sorry figuer, but me and reason are going to have to disagree with you here.You and REASON??? :rolleyes: :D

There is nothing rational about your position. It is absurd and completely unscientific.

[Theophage]

No it's belittling consciousness i don't think it's the correct approach to take.


So...you're saying that because explanation X results in a conclusion that you don't like, that explanation X must be incorrect? Do you realize that emotion does not help determine truth? That is like the epitome of irrational thinking. If you are just going with whatever reasoning makes you feel better, dude, why are you even bothering with this whole deal about evidence?

(regarding the MWI)
It's stuck with that because number one it looks like a increasing number of physicists are taking this idea seriously.

But it is not the mainstream accepted explanation right?, thus its irrelevance.


There also appears to be cosmological observation that also support it according to Max Tegmark.

Well that's excellent! Perhaps then there will be enough evidence to determine experimentally whether or not it is correct. But then were still stuck with (1) God + MWI + the universe versus (2) MWI + the universe. Again, it should be no secret that (2) is simpler.

[figuer]

I'm afraid that I don't really understand the dispute. Occam's Razor is not a law, hypothesis, theorem, etc. It is simply an observation that, in general, evoking causes or forces (especially unknown causes or forces) that are unnecessary to explain an occurrence is, duh... unnecessary.
Precisely

[Tuffa Nuff]

I'm afraid that I don't really understand the dispute. Occam's Razor is not a law, hypothesis, theorem, etc. It is simply an observation that, in general, evoking causes or forces (especially unknown causes or forces) that are unnecessary to explain an occurrence is, duh... unnecessary.

At least that's my understanding.I agree totally. If an explanation works entirely adequately, there is no need for additions to it. If two explanations both seem to work reasonably well, then the simpler, (if such a discrimination can be made), is more likely to be correct, but not necessarily so.

Simpler would at times mean: with quantitatively less elements or steps of causation or of reasoning. The specifics are going to vary depending upon the problem under consideration.

[figuer]

But it is not the mainstream accepted explanation right?, thus its irrelevance.
Something is relevant if it fits the evidence, not if the mainstream accepts it.

[Theophage]

I'm sorry figuer, but me and reason are going to have to disagree with you here.You and REASON??? :rolleyes: :D

There is nothing rational about your position. It is absurd and completely unscientific.

Yeah...parsimony (just another name for the razor) is unscientific. Okay. I think we'll let the peanut gallery decide: Is occam's razor an accepted principle of reasoning or not? Is parsimony used in science or not? If I'm not mistaken, even the library webpages on reason and logic here at II accept the razor. Pardon me while I dig up the link...

Why yes, here it is:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#occam

[figuer]

Yeah...parsimony (just another name for the razor) is unscientific. Okay. I think we'll let the peanut gallery decide: Is occam's razor an accepted principle of reasoning or not? Is parsimony used in science or not?I am under the impression you are not understanding what parsimony is or its uses. Please, read post #28 (both the quote and response), and try to understand.

[Theophage]

Yeah...parsimony (just another name for the razor) is unscientific. Okay. I think we'll let the peanut gallery decide: Is occam's razor an accepted principle of reasoning or not? Is parsimony used in science or not?I am under the impression you are not understanding what parsimony is or its uses. Please, read post #28 (both the quote and response), and try to understand.

I reread it. I agree with skepticalbip, I agree with Tuffa Nuff. I even agreed with you for a bit. But when you come out and say


Not in the cases where the razor is relevant. Let's look at a classic example, the origin of the universe: Explanation #1: God created the universe; God has always existed. Explanation #2: The universe has always existed.

Regardless of how you feel about either explanation, is there confusion about which explanation requires more entities? Obviously #1 does. Thus by the razor, #2 is simpler.
So? It being simpler indicates nothing of its validity, thus proving the irrelevance of Occam's Razor in determining the value of a proposition.

That tells me that you're the one who isn't getting it. That was a pretty cut and dried example, and yes, the razor does tell us which of those two is more likely to be correct.

[figuer]

That tells me that you're the one who isn't getting it. That was a pretty cut and dried example, and yes, the razor does tell us which of those two is more likely to be correct.No, you are completely wrong. The 'razor' is useless in determining the validity of the two different propositions in that example.

[Theophage]

No, you are completely wrong. The 'razor' is useless in determining the validity of the two different propositions in that example.

Well, that's fabulous that you think so. Should I just accept that on your authority? Perhaps it might help if you explained why.

[figuer]

Elementary logic: The proposition 1. 'The Universe has always existed', can not be proved or refuted at present; The proposition 2. 'God has always existed and created the Universe', can not be proved or refuted at present. That 1. is simpler in composition than 2. indicates nothing about the validity or invalidity of either.

[Theophage]

Elementary logic: The proposition 1. 'The Universe has always existed', can not be proved or refuted at present; The proposition 2. 'God has always existed and created the Universe', can not be proved or refuted at present. That 1. is simpler in composition than 2. indicates nothing about the validity or invalidity of either.

I guess this is yet another thing that you and I disagree upon. I see it as obvious that the universe has always existed, because in order for that to be false, there has to be a time at which it did not, and I find that to be incoherent.

But perhaps it is on that point that we disagree and not with Occam's razor itself. Perhaps it is because of that point, that you feel I am misusing this principle. So let us start from an agreed upon premise, and see if we agree from there.

Let's assume that there are only two options, that the universe has always existed or that God has always existed and chose a particular point in time to create the universe. Let us further suppose that there is no testable difference between these explanations, since all measureable behaviors of the universe are the same in both cases, and God himself is simply immeasureable at all.

Given this, does the razor tell us if the explanation without God is more likely to be correct?

[figuer]

Given this, does the razor tell us if the explanation without God is more likely to be correct?No.

[Theophage]

...and of course, I'll have to make yet another post to ask you "Why?"

This is like pulling teeth, and it is really not as fun as it was five hours ago.

[Adonael]

So, over in the thread on the meaninglessness of Naturalism (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=245505), LeoM offered
THIS (http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page3.htm) link as to why Occam's razor is invalid reasoning. Instead of further derailing that thread, I'd like to address the (bad) reasoning in that link here.

In the next post...

Occam's razor has nothing to do with the paranormal only the natural which was the main point.

occam did not exclude the supernatural

[figuer]

In reference to p.#38.

If there are no testable differences, why should I declare one to be more likely simply because one enunciate is composed of less elements? In the example given, just as god is unmeasurable, so is the eternity of the universe. The likeness of each is to be determined by the evidence available for each proposition, not for such a superfluous consideration as to the complexity of the explanation.

[Kosh3]

Our preference for simple theories can be grounded in at least 3 ways. Firstly, the simpler a theory is, other things all being equal the more it reduces a range of phenomenon to a smaller number of things, the more then it systematises our knowledge (which is a basic goal of scientific inquiry). Secondly, the simpler a theory is, all other things being equal the more likely it is to be true (T is likelier than T+T' because any conjunction must have a lower prior probability). We might also note the possibility of conducting an empirical survey of what theories have been shown to be true (or survived falsification), and from that (if it is found that simplicity features regularly among true theories) inductively support our preference for simplicity by making reference to their increased probability of being true in virtue of that simplicity. Lastly, for pragmatic reasons, simplicity is simply to be preferred. We are finite beings, and have finite mental capacities.

[nermal]

Elementary logic: The proposition 1. 'The Universe has always existed', can not be proved or refuted at present; The proposition 2. 'God has always existed and created the Universe', can not be proved or refuted at present. That 1. is simpler in composition than 2. indicates nothing about the validity or invalidity of either.

Of course, once you throw out the razor, and accept that both explanations are equally valid, then you de facto accept an infinite number of explanations as equally valid.

1. The IPU did it.
2. Magical Garden Gnomes control our thoughts and make us see a reality that doesn't exist, while we all live swishing around in a cosmic toilet bowl.
3. It's turtles. All the way down.
4. ....

N+1. ....
.....

You see, that's the whole point of the razor. Given an observed phenomena, you should accept that explanation which requires the fewest number of invented influences. Otherwise you might as well just throw up your hands and bow to the ensuing chaos.

Ed

[LeoM]

Are you sure? many scientists have come to the conclusion


Really Leo? Many scientists? How many? Are they a majority or a minority? Why aren't their views considered mainstream? I think it is because they are a small minority who don;t have enough evidence for their ideas to become mainstream.



And many that say those things can explain it. Where is the majority of the evidence? On what side of the argument is the mainstream? Science isn't a popularity contest, and every scientific theory that is now accepted had its vigorous detractors. But the perponderance of evidence wins in science, and it currently falls against your claims. I'm sorry, if you want mainstream acceptance, get more and better evidence.

Now with the fact that normal explanations cannot account for a lot of paranormal phenomena there is of course another explanation and that is super psi talked about here as an alternative to the survival hypothesis.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/04/superpsi_me.html

I hope this link has some good evidence in it, but I'm guessing it probably doesn't. It'll take me a while to read it.

Their is the minority the evidence was not accepted because science turned into a materialistic ideology. I wish the prepondence of evidence wins in science but sadly it doesn't work that way. And no it not just because i don't like this view of the mind is a product of the brain but it's false by the evidence i have researched.

[LeoM]

You and REASON??? :rolleyes: :D

There is nothing rational about your position. It is absurd and completely unscientific.

Yeah...parsimony (just another name for the razor) is unscientific. Okay. I think we'll let the peanut gallery decide: Is occam's razor an accepted principle of reasoning or not? Is parsimony used in science or not? If I'm not mistaken, even the library webpages on reason and logic here at II accept the razor. Pardon me while I dig up the link...

Why yes, here it is:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#occam

Yes and it's often misused by materialists:rolleyes:

[figuer]

Of course, once you throw out the razor, and accept that both explanations are equally valid, then you de facto accept an infinite number of explanations as equally valid....You see, that's the whole point of the razor. Given an observed phenomena, you should accept that explanation which requires the fewest number of invented influences. Otherwise you might as well just throw up your hands and bow to the ensuing chaos.No... It is not about both explanations being equally valid, it is about the parsimony of the proposition being irrelevant in determining their validity. Validity is determined by evidence, and evidence determines the necessary entities. The "razor" is a simple recommendation, which has the contrary "antirazor".

[LeoM]

Here's a look at some of the scientists who agree with the evidence in support of psi and survival

http://www.aspsi.org/feat/life_after/tymn/testimonials.htm


“When science begins the study of non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the centuries of its experience.”
British cosmologist, Dr Fred Hoyle

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Here's a look at some of the scientists who agree with the evidence in support of psi and survival


in addition to all those scientists who are muslims, christians, and believers of other kinds of charlatanerie. Reminds us that scientists are human too and many of them need to keep their childhood fears at bay with what their parents filled their heads at the time.

[LeoM]

Here's a look at some of the scientists who agree with the evidence in support of psi and survival


in addition to all those scientists who are muslims, christians, and believers of other kinds of charlatanerie. Reminds us that scientists are human too and many of them need to keep their childhood fears at bay with what their parents filled their heads at the time.

Lol those scientists i gave a link were open minded and tested to see if psi and survival were likely or not and they are indeed likely.

[skepticalbip]

Here's a look at some of the scientists who agree with the evidence in support of psi and survival

http://www.aspsi.org/feat/life_after/tymn/testimonials.htm


“When science begins the study of non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the centuries of its experience.”
British cosmologist, Dr Fred Hoyle
:D :D :D
Amazing. I gotta ask if you think tagging the title "scientists" makes someone infallible in all disciplines. An why this extremely short list of mostly people from the 1800s? If it was "consensus" as you seem to want to indicate, then why not a list of the names of tens of thousands of "scientists" from the 1900s, not to mention current "scientists"?

Yes the understanding of scientists is important - but only their opinion in their field of specialty. "Scientists" are no more immune to idiotic beliefs outside their specialty than anyone else (sometimes even within their speciality). e.g. What a psychologist thinks about cosmology is no better guide to reality than what the check-out clerk at the local jiffy-mart thinks of cosmology.

[LeoM]

Here's a look at some of the scientists who agree with the evidence in support of psi and survival

http://www.aspsi.org/feat/life_after/tymn/testimonials.htm


“When science begins the study of non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the centuries of its experience.”
British cosmologist, Dr Fred Hoyle
:D :D :D
Amazing. I gotta ask if you think tagging the title "scientists" makes someone infallible in all disciplines. An why this extremely short list of mostly people from the 1800s? If it was "consensus" as you seem to want to indicate, then why not a list of the names of tens of thousands of "scientists" from the 1900s, not to mention current "scientists"?

Yes the understanding of scientists is important - but only their opinion in their field of specialty. "Scientists" are no more immune to idiotic beliefs outside their specialty than anyone else (sometimes even within their speciality). e.g. What a psychologist thinks about cosmology is no better guide to reality than what the check-out clerk at the local jiffy-mart thinks of cosmology.

Well I do have a much bigger list if you want

1. Dr.Louisa Rhine
2. Dr.Mario Beregard
3. Dr.PMH Atwater
4. Dr.Jim Tucker
5. Dr.G.Zorab
6. Dr.Karl Pribram
7. Dr.Greg Stone
8. Dr.Neil Grossman
9. Dr.Masaru Emoto
10. Dr.Herms Roijjn
11. Dr.Paul Beard
12. Professor JC.Eccles
13. Professor William James
14. Dr.Wilder Penfield
15. Physicist Dean Radin
16. Dr.Eugene Osty
17. Dr.Penny Sartori
18. Dr.Bruce Greyson
19. Dr.Ian Stevenson
20. Dr.Jim Tucker
21. Dr.Kenneth Ring
22. Dr.Pim Van Lommel
23. Dr.Joel Whitton
24. Physicist Amit Goswami
25. Professor James Hyslop
26. Dr.Brian Weiss
27. Dr.Jeff Long
28. Dr.Jody Long
29. Physicist Fred Alan Wolf
30. Dr.Peter Fenwick
31. Dr.Lisa Butler
32. Dr.Raymond Moody
33. Dr.Craig Lundahl
34. Dr.Elizabeth Kubler Ross
35. Dr.Piers Eggett
36. Tom Butler
37. Montague Keen
38. Dr.JB Rhine
39. Dr.Jon Klimo
40. Keith Clark
41. Dr.Carl Wickland
42. Dr. Charles Tart
43. Dr.Issac Funk
44. Dr.John S King
45. Professor Bokris
45. Dr.Michael Sabom
46. Dr.Anabela Cordoso
47. Dr.Jody Long
48. Dr.Robert Hare
49. Professor Hornell Hart
50. Dr.Hamlin Garland
51. Dr.CJ Ducasse
52. Allan Karadec
53. Dr.Richard Hodgson
54. Professor Jessica Utts
55. Professor Brian Josephson
56. Dr.Barbara Rommer
57. Dr. Brian Inglis
58. Professor James J Mapes
59. Dr.Harry Price
60. William Brown
61. Dr.arthur Oram
62. Dr.Lewis
63. Dr.Emily Cook
64. Dr.Emily Kelly
65. Dr.Edward Kelly
66. Dr.Glen Hamilton
67. Physicist Nick Herbert
68. Dr.Peter Mulacz
69. Dr.William Braude
70. Dr.Nancy Zingrone
71. Physicist Saul Paul Siraq
72. Physicist Claude Swanson
73. Dr.Carl Jung
74. Dr.Karlis Osio
75. Tom Harrison
76. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
77. Dr.David Ash
78. Michael Talbot
79. Dr.Deepak Chopra
80. Dr.J.Lee Choron
81. Physicist Evan Harris Walker
82. Dr.Harold Puthoff
83. Dr.Byron D
84. Dr.Dick Bierman
85. Dr,Gerald Edelste
86. Dr.Maurice Rawlings
87. Dr.Enrico Marabini
88. Dr.Sylvia Hart Wright
89. Dr.Helen Wambach
90. Dr.Sam Parnia
91. Dr.Hans Schaer
92. Dr.Sinesio Darnell
92. Dr. Vitalii
93. Dr.Melvin Morse
94. Dr.JP Moreland
95. Dr.Robert Morris
96. Dr.Robert Spetzler
97. Dr.Johann Zollner
98. Physicist Sir Oliver Lodge
99. Sam Harris
100. Dr.Titus Rivas
101. Dr.Camille Flammarion
102. professor henry sidgwick
103. dr.hereword carrington
104. dr.allan l.botkin
105. dr.alfred russel wallace
106. dr.peter hewitt
107. professor russell targ
108. professor jacob d bekenstein
109. dr.morris netherton
110. dr.carla wills-brandon
111. physicist david bohm
112. dr.julie beischel
113. michael prescott
114. michael cromer
115. professor john a wheeler
116. professor robert f.almeder
117. dr.dean sheils
118. general george s patton
119. dr.harold widdson
120. martin ebon
121. physicist arthur eddington
122. shirley maclaine
123. dr.steven levine
124. peter sellers
125. dr.jeffery mishlove
126. dr.ken wilbur
127. professor hf saltmarsh
128. dr.ram dacs
129. olivia john newton
130. abraham lincoln
131. physicist richard conn henry
132. dr.jean burns
133. j arthur hill
134. jj thompson
135. dr.loyd auebach
136. chris carter
137. dr.konstantine raudive
138. professor peter wadhams
139. dr.michael grosso
140. dr.gnm tyrell
141. michael e tymn
142. professor erlendur haraldsson
143. proessor gustav geley
144. ernst hemingway
145. dr.simon bevoich
146. barbara harris whitfield
147. d.scott rogo
148. dr.peter bander
149. professor david fontana
150. dr.linda russek
151. professor william barett
152. professor charles richet
153. dr.hazel m.denning
154. professor sir william crookes
155. dr.aubrey rose
156. dr.robert a.monroe
157. dr.wj crawford
158. michael roll
159. engineer ronald pearson
160. dr.edwim may
161. dr.craig r hogan
162. professor steven braude
163. john g.fuller
164. professor arthur ellison
165. dr.gardner murphy
166. dr.edith fiore
167. dr.john demartino
168. marcello bacci
169. lyn ostrander
170. dr.baraduc
171. professor augustus de morgan
172. dr.carlos alvardo
173. harold anson
174. j.arthur hill
175. professor stephen r.palguist
176. dr.robert h.thouless
177. cd broad
178. dr.walter von lucadou
179. dr.alexander trofimov
180. professor ivor grattan guiness
181. physicist salvatore
182. professor mario festa
183. dr.mario vargolis
184. physicist t.lee baumann
185. dr.alex katsman
186. dr.pat kubis
187. mark macy
188. george meek
189. dr.theo locher
190. professor fwh myers
191. john logie baird
192. dr.soygal rinpoche
193. dr.osti rudi schneider
194. dr.chris roe
195. dr.john b alexander
196. guy lyon playfair
197. dr.adrian parker
198. dr.ralph abraham
199. dr.nancy l zingrone
200. dr.keith mcquin roberts
201. professor arthur m.young
202. joseph w.mcmoneagle
203. dr.arthur hastings
204. Dr. Barbara Brennan
205. Professor John Bokris
206. Dr. Pamela Heath
207. Dr.Michael Rhodes
208. Dr. Andrew Nichols
209. Dr. Peter Hayes
210. Dr. Mark A. Schroll
211. Dr. Lu Rudolph
212. Dr. Etzel Cardeña
213. Dr. Mitchell Gibson
214. Dr. George T. Dexter
215. Dr. A. S. Wiltse

[sy2502]

Well I do have a much bigger list if you want


You obviously didn't get what skepticalbip and Lógos Sokratikós were saying. There is an even longer list of scientists who profess to believe in god. So what? Whenever a scientist professes a belief based on faith rather than science, he/she is not at that particular point doing science. When a scientist talks about non-scientific stuff, he/she is no more an authority on the matter than me and you. Newton believed in alchemy. I consider him an authority when we are talking about his famous equations, but not about alchemy. Do you see the difference? About the paranormal, having a scientist present scientific evidence and solid proof about it is much much different from a scientist saying they have "faith" or "belief" in the supernatural. I am not going to believe in the supernatural because somebody else believes it. I am going to believe only in what has solid proof. The truth is that at this particular moment there is no solid proof for the paranormal. Like it or not, that's the way things are just now. Therefore, Occam's Razor is perfectly applicable to the situation.

Also, I would like to point out that Occam's Razor is not only about simplicity but also about explanatory power. Specifically, does an explanation introduce more questions than it answers? In the case of the universe, introducing god isn't only the less simple explanation, but while it answers one question (how did the universe come to be?) it introduces an endless list of unanswered questions (who's god? how many gods are there? why did god create the universe? how did he create the universe? where is god? what does he do? etc etc).

[skepticalbip]

:D :D :D
Amazing. I gotta ask if you think tagging the title "scientists" makes someone infallible in all disciplines. An why this extremely short list of mostly people from the 1800s? If it was "consensus" as you seem to want to indicate, then why not a list of the names of tens of thousands of "scientists" from the 1900s, not to mention current "scientists"?

Yes the understanding of scientists is important - but only their opinion in their field of specialty. "Scientists" are no more immune to idiotic beliefs outside their specialty than anyone else (sometimes even within their speciality). e.g. What a psychologist thinks about cosmology is no better guide to reality than what the check-out clerk at the local jiffy-mart thinks of cosmology.

Well I do have a much bigger list if you want

1. Dr.Louisa Rhine
2. Dr.Mario Beregard
3. Dr.PMH Atwater
4. Dr.Jim Tucker
<snip>
215. Dr. A. S. Wiltse
Cute, a list of a few names. I started going through them but could find nothing about them doing any real "science" into psi. Most are simply collecting anecdotal stories or stretching their imagination (spinning stories) about what they think is going on. - no modeling, no testing those models. Admitted, I didn't go through all of them and don't intend to unless you can point to one that is actually approaching psi using the scientific method.

The closest to science I could find in the six or seven I checked was Mario Beauregard – neuroscientist - who is studying brain reaction under different emotional states (that ain't psi). What she hopes she can find is rather irrelevant as it has not been modeled, found, and demonstrated.

Maybe it's that you don't understand the scientific method... or the difference between science and opinion or beliefs, for that matter.

[figuer]

Here's a look at some of the scientists who agree with the evidence in support of psi and survival...I need to ask: How is such a list relevant to the theme being discussed in this thread? I don't understand the derail.

[PyramidHead]

LeoM: I noticed you included Sam Harris on that list. Sam Harris has stated that he is in complete agreement with fellow atheist author Daniel Dennett, who is a physicalist, when it comes to the nature of the mind. Sam simply feels, as do the skeptics on this board, that actual rigorous scientific tests should be done to determine the truth about so-called paranormal claims. He does not believe in ghosts, life after death, or the transmission theory of consciousness. Putting him on your list of scientists who support your position is a dishonest move reminiscent of a creationist's quote mining.

[nermal]

No... It is not about both explanations being equally valid, it is about the parsimony of the proposition being irrelevant in determining their validity. Validity is determined by evidence, and evidence determines the necessary entities. The "razor" is a simple recommendation, which has the contrary "antirazor".

Your post I responded to was specifically about the competing hypotheses for the beginning of the universe:

1. God did it.
2. The universe has always been.

Now, since there is no evidence whatsoever, and we are in fact dealing with competing untestable hypotheses, the razor is the only way to determine validity. Without parsimony, we are, in fact, left with the inescapable conclusion that all hypotheses explaining the universe are equally valid.

If you disagree with this, then please show how either of the above explanations are more valid than my gnome theory, without using parsimony.
Or, show me the evidence that exists for any specific hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe.

In the case of paranormal phenomena, were testable evidence to exist pointing to the existence of Shakespeare's Ghost, Occam's Razor would suggest that we hypothesize the existence of Shakespeare's Ghost. The problem with paranormal research is that all the evidence has been gathered secondhand by paranormal researchers. To my knowledge, and I'm certainly not an expert on everything, no testable evidence exists pointing to the existence of even pedestrian ghosts, much less celebrity ghosts.

Again, if there is actual, repeatable and testable evidence pointing to such phenomena, I'd be interested in reading about it.
If ghosts and such existed, I would think we would be able to find them in controlled environments. After all, even the ever illusive neutrino was observed and measured.

It's not William's fault that science disputes the existence of the paranormal. It's that pesky lack of evidence.

Ed

[Illusio]

No... It is not about both explanations being equally valid, it is about the parsimony of the proposition being irrelevant in determining their validity. Validity is determined by evidence, and evidence determines the necessary entities. The "razor" is a simple recommendation, which has the contrary "antirazor".

Occam's razor doesn't say anything about validity. Say we have the two competing hypotheses:

1. Fg = G*(m1+m2)/r^2

and

2. Fg = G*(m1+m2)/r^2, but only when God wants it to work.

If I understand your view correctly it isn't meaningful to use Occam's razor here, because 2. may in fact describe nature and although 1. appears to work every time, it may be that we simply never have observed God not wanting gravity to work. I consider this a direct parallell to the universe creation example that you denied above: We "know the universe exists, but we have never observed a God making the universe exist" in the same way we "know Newtons law of gravity is pretty good, but we have never observed God guiding it".

Anyway, in my view, Occam's razor is a practical tool to help us produce simple and useful theories - it has nothing to do with proving validity ever. You cut away everything that doesn't appear to add value to your theory. This obviously must include all supernatural entities because they can all be added as extra sources of psychokinetic energy in 2. with no way of deciding if they ever contribute or not(That's why we call them supernatural and not natural after all).

A scientist would therefore use Occam's razor to slice away God and tentatively accept 1. as the foundation for further work until evidence demands acceptance of 2.(No theory is ever proved, so every single piece of knowledge in the natural sciences is tentatively accepted in this manner)

[figuer]

Now, since there is no evidence whatsoever, and we are in fact dealing with competing untestable hypotheses, the razor is the only way to determine validity. Without parsimony, we are, in fact, left with the inescapable conclusion that all hypotheses explaining the universe are equally valid.False. The 'razor' does not permit you to determine validity at all. Neither does negating the 'razor' mean that all hypotheses are equally valid. I repeat: Validity is determined by evidence, not by such a ridiculous meaningless concept as parsimony.

[figuer]

No... It is not about both explanations being equally valid, it is about the parsimony of the proposition being irrelevant in determining their validity. Validity is determined by evidence, and evidence determines the necessary entities. The "razor" is a simple recommendation, which has the contrary "antirazor".

Occam's razor doesn't say anything about validity. Say we have the two competing hypotheses:

1. Fg = G*(m1+m2)/r^2

and

2. Fg = G*(m1+m2)/r^2, but only when God wants it to work.

If I understand your view correctly it isn't meaningful to use Occam's razor here, because 2. may in fact describe nature and although 1. appears to work every time, it may be that we simply never have observed God not wanting gravity to work. I consider this a direct parallell to the universe creation example that you denied above: We "know the universe exists, but we have never observed a God making the universe exist" in the same way we "know Newtons law of gravity is pretty good, but we have never observed God guiding it".

Anyway, in my view, Occam's razor is a practical tool to help us produce simple and useful theories - it has nothing to do with proving validity ever. You cut away everything that doesn't appear to add value to your theory. This obviously must include all supernatural entities because they can all be added as extra sources of psychokinetic energy in 2. with no way of deciding if they ever contribute or not(That's why we call them supernatural and not natural after all).

A scientist would therefore use Occam's razor to slice away God and tentatively accept 1. as the foundation for further work until evidence demands acceptance of 2.(No theory is ever proved, so every single piece of knowledge in the natural sciences is tentatively accepted in this manner)I very rarely quote entire posts, specially if they are long and elaborate, but this one deserves emphasis because it illustrates rather well the point I have been endeavoring to demonstrate.

The underlined part, Illusio's view, matches mine.

[nermal]

False. The 'razor' does not permit you to determine validity at all. Neither does negating the 'razor' mean that all hypotheses are equally valid. I repeat: Validity is determined by evidence, not by such a ridiculous meaningless concept as parsimony.

How is validity determined by evidence, when evidence is nonexistant? Discussion of evidence, as in real, testable evidence in the case of paranormal research is non sequitor.


But you're right of course. I overstated without meaning to. Determine is too strong a word; rather, suggest, imply, strongly infer.


That does not mean the razor doesn't apply at all in the case of paranormal "science." Such cases are where the razor is most important, lest we waste time pursuing every equally "valid" hypothesis promoted by every "scientist."
One should have a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, where hypotheses are concerned, and the razor, in the absence of evidence, is all there is.

To say the razor is irrelevant in the investigation of the paranormal is misleading, to say the least. One may as well say the razor is irrelevant in all instances.

Again, to discuss paranormal hypotheses in the absence of testable evidence, and without parsimony, is to cackle like hens. Much noise is about, but there is no increase in the level of understanding or meaning.

Ed

[figuer]

How is validity determined by evidence, when evidence is nonexistant?Nonexistent evidence would not help in validating something, right? That suffices to answer your query.To say the razor is irrelevant in the investigation of the paranormal is misleading, to say the least. One may as well say the razor is irrelevant in all instances.It is irrelevant in all instances... Parsimony is not an investigative tool... it only helps in the construction of explanations

[sy2502]

No... It is not about both explanations being equally valid, it is about the parsimony of the proposition being irrelevant in determining their validity. Validity is determined by evidence, and evidence determines the necessary entities. The "razor" is a simple recommendation, which has the contrary "antirazor".

Occam's razor doesn't say anything about validity. Say we have the two competing hypotheses:

1. Fg = G*(m1+m2)/r^2

and

2. Fg = G*(m1+m2)/r^2, but only when God wants it to work.

If I understand your view correctly it isn't meaningful to use Occam's razor here, because 2. may in fact describe nature and although 1. appears to work every time, it may be that we simply never have observed God not wanting gravity to work. I consider this a direct parallell to the universe creation example that you denied above: We "know the universe exists, but we have never observed a God making the universe exist" in the same way we "know Newtons law of gravity is pretty good, but we have never observed God guiding it".

Anyway, in my view, Occam's razor is a practical tool to help us produce simple and useful theories - it has nothing to do with proving validity ever. You cut away everything that doesn't appear to add value to your theory. This obviously must include all supernatural entities because they can all be added as extra sources of psychokinetic energy in 2. with no way of deciding if they ever contribute or not(That's why we call them supernatural and not natural after all).

A scientist would therefore use Occam's razor to slice away God and tentatively accept 1. as the foundation for further work until evidence demands acceptance of 2.(No theory is ever proved, so every single piece of knowledge in the natural sciences is tentatively accepted in this manner)

I agree with you that Occam's Razor doesn't determine which theory is true. What it is, on the other hand, is a good tool to discriminate between theories. In your example, we have the choice of
1) Gravity
2) Gravity + will of god
I agree with you that the fact that 1 is simpler than 2 doesn't necessarily mean that 1 is true and 2 isn't. But let's continue the example. Let's say the choices are
1) Gravity
2) Gravity + will of god
3) Gravity + fairies
4) Gravity + fairies + spaghetti monster
...
We already agree that Occam's Razor doesn't prove that 1 is more valid than 4. It is also true that god, fairies and the spaghetti monster cannot be falsified. All the above theories give the same predictions, and hield the same results. Which one do we choose then? Since they all give the same results, but all except 1 open more questions than they answer (which god? what do fairies look like? where is the spaghetti monster?) Occam tells us to choose the simpler one.

[skepticalbip]

I agree with you that Occam's Razor doesn't determine which theory is true. What it is, on the other hand, is a good tool to discriminate between theories. In your example, we have the choice of
1) Gravity
2) Gravity + will of god
I agree with you that the fact that 1 is simpler than 2 doesn't necessarily mean that 1 is true and 2 isn't. But let's continue the example. Let's say the choices are
1) Gravity
2) Gravity + will of god
3) Gravity + fairies
4) Gravity + fairies + spaghetti monster
...
We already agree that Occam's Razor doesn't prove that 1 is more valid than 4. It is also true that god, fairies and the spaghetti monster cannot be falsified. All the above theories give the same predictions, and hield the same results. Which one do we choose then? Since they all give the same results, but all except 1 open more questions than they answer (which god? what do fairies look like? where is the spaghetti monster?) Occam tells us to choose the simpler one.True... If either 4 is valid or 3 is valid or 2 is valid then, necessarily, 1 is valid. So according Occam, if we are looking for the one most likely to be valid then 1 is it. It is possible that it doesn't describe everything but it is sufficient to describe what we observe and can measure.

Well done.. :thumbs:

[figuer]

So according Occam, if we are looking for the one most likely to be valid then 1 is it. And the myth goes on and on and on and on...... (it is not about determining the one "most likely to be valid", it is about illustrating a concept in the simplest manner).

[LeoM]

LeoM: I noticed you included Sam Harris on that list. Sam Harris has stated that he is in complete agreement with fellow atheist author Daniel Dennett, who is a physicalist, when it comes to the nature of the mind. Sam simply feels, as do the skeptics on this board, that actual rigorous scientific tests should be done to determine the truth about so-called paranormal claims. He does not believe in ghosts, life after death, or the transmission theory of consciousness. Putting him on your list of scientists who support your position is a dishonest move reminiscent of a creationist's quote mining.

True but at least he is a little open minded to admit that parapsychologosts have been unfairly stigmatized.

[LeoM]

Well I do have a much bigger list if you want

1. Dr.Louisa Rhine
2. Dr.Mario Beregard
3. Dr.PMH Atwater
4. Dr.Jim Tucker
<snip>
215. Dr. A. S. Wiltse
Cute, a list of a few names. I started going through them but could find nothing about them doing any real "science" into psi. Most are simply collecting anecdotal stories or stretching their imagination (spinning stories) about what they think is going on. - no modeling, no testing those models. Admitted, I didn't go through all of them and don't intend to unless you can point to one that is actually approaching psi using the scientific method.

The closest to science I could find in the six or seven I checked was Mario Beauregard – neuroscientist - who is studying brain reaction under different emotional states (that ain't psi). What she hopes she can find is rather irrelevant as it has not been modeled, found, and demonstrated.

Maybe it's that you don't understand the scientific method... or the difference between science and opinion or beliefs, for that matter.

Their as been many studies done on psi

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/chan-evid.html
http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/delanoy.html

[skepticalbip]

So according Occam, if we are looking for the one most likely to be valid then 1 is it. And the myth goes on and on and on and on...... (it is not about determining the one "most likely to be valid", it is about illustrating a concept in the simplest manner).
I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing that the very purpose of illustrating a concept (modeling a phenomena) is to illustrate (model) it correctly. Occam is just an observation that it should be done with the fewest terms necessary. - Once there are sufficient terms to model the phenomena then any additional terms increases the likelihood of missing the original purpose of the exercise (modeling it correctly).

Occam's razor - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

[Antiplastic]

Occam's razor doesn't say anything about validity. Say we have the two competing hypotheses:

1. Fg = G*(m1+m2)/r^2

and

2. Fg = G*(m1+m2)/r^2, but only when God wants it to work.

If I understand your view correctly it isn't meaningful to use Occam's razor here, because 2. may in fact describe nature and although 1. appears to work every time, it may be that we simply never have observed God not wanting gravity to work. I consider this a direct parallell to the universe creation example that you denied above: We "know the universe exists, but we have never observed a God making the universe exist" in the same way we "know Newtons law of gravity is pretty good, but we have never observed God guiding it".

Anyway, in my view, Occam's razor is a practical tool to help us produce simple and useful theories - it has nothing to do with proving validity ever. You cut away everything that doesn't appear to add value to your theory. This obviously must include all supernatural entities because they can all be added as extra sources of psychokinetic energy in 2. with no way of deciding if they ever contribute or not(That's why we call them supernatural and not natural after all).

A scientist would therefore use Occam's razor to slice away God and tentatively accept 1. as the foundation for further work until evidence demands acceptance of 2.(No theory is ever proved, so every single piece of knowledge in the natural sciences is tentatively accepted in this manner)

I agree with you that Occam's Razor doesn't determine which theory is true. What it is, on the other hand, is a good tool to discriminate between theories. In your example, we have the choice of
1) Gravity
2) Gravity + will of god
I agree with you that the fact that 1 is simpler than 2 doesn't necessarily mean that 1 is true and 2 isn't. But let's continue the example. Let's say the choices are
1) Gravity
2) Gravity + will of god
3) Gravity + fairies
4) Gravity + fairies + spaghetti monster
...
We already agree that Occam's Razor doesn't prove that 1 is more valid than 4.

No, actually, it does.

Every empirical claim you make has a nonzero probability of being false. Therefore, as a matter of just basic maths, the conjunction of the propositions of a theory with additional hypothetical entities will always be less likely than any empirically equivalent theory.

[figuer]

I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing that the very purpose of illustrating a concept (modeling a phenomena) is to illustrate (model) it correctly. Occam is just an observation that it should be done with the fewest terms necessary. - Once there are sufficient terms to model the phenomena then any additional terms increases the likelihood of missing the original purpose of the exercise (modeling it correctly).I agree, but it is not that I am missing such a purpose. My problem is with those who forget that the 'razor' is intended only as a tool in the process of illustrating a concept, not as a tool to buttress an argument during a philosophical/scientific discussion. Then it becomes the Fallacy of Parsimony.

[figuer]

Every empirical claim you make has a nonzero probability of being false. What??? I see no justification for such a CLAIM. An "empirical" claim is but an interpretation of an experience, and the interpretation can be quite false.

[Antiplastic]

Every empirical claim you make has a nonzero probability of being false. What??? I see no justification for such a CLAIM. An "empirical" claim is but an interpretation of an experience, and the interpretation can be quite false.

Did you miss the import of first three letters of the word before 'probability'?

[figuer]

Did you miss the import of first three letters of the word before 'probability'?Indeed I had missed it...:redface:

[Antiplastic]

Did you miss the import of first three letters of the word before 'probability'?Indeed I had missed it...:redface:

I myself suffer from nested-negation dyslexia. When I hear on the radio that "the court did not rule on whether it was impermissible to refrain from telling people not to do something", I have to sit down and work it out like homework.

[militant agnostic]

Getting back to the article in the OP, we read this little gem:



The biggest hurdle facing the explanation of paranormal or supernatural phenomena is just showing that it exists, let alone getting around to competing explanations of what causes it. And skeptics of today use the the razor exactly how it is supposed to be used, just like Newton above. Things like does the mind survive death? Where do thoughts come from? Where does morality, life, and the universe come from? Sorry supernaturalists, but so far your record for correct explainations is exactly ZERO.

Let's move on to point #2 of why Occam's razor is invalid, shall we?



Not in the cases where the razor is relevant. Let's look at a classic example, the origin of the universe: Explanation #1: God created the universe; God has always existed. Explanation #2: The universe has always existed.

Regardless of how you feel about either explanation, is there confusion about which explanation requires more entities? Obviously #1 does. Thus by the razor, #2 is simpler. See, that wasn't hard! For bonus points, can you tell me under what conditions the razor would or would not apply to the above two explanations? (And you thought there wouldn't be any homework...)


But physics is not complete also if the universe always existed we need to prove that is so one way is the postulate the many world's interpretation which postulates quadrillions of universes compared to a god explanation which requires 1 other reality tell me what is simpler there? But at least paranormalist's take consciousness seriously unlike materialist's who assume that the brain produces consciousness in approximately the same way that the liver produces bile.

Other than the point already mentioned (even if God exists we still end up having to account for the possibility of multiple universes) Occam's razor still favors the multiple universe theory.

The point of Occam's razor is to not inject unnessicary elements into a theory than are needed to explain the facts and to prevent attempts to "add" conclusions by inflating the theory so it encompasses the frivolous. It does not, however, require us to give up entities that are factually supportable just because there are allot of them.

In a situation where we have non observable entities but one is at least plausible and definable, while the other is completely undefined and comes with so many aspects to it that it makes us have to consider a whole new world of questions the definable and partially understood trumps the total mystery the same way the factual entity trumps the non factual entity.

Because of this, the theory that presupposes multiple universes actually has less to explain than the "God did it" idea because even though the multiple universes are unobservable they are not impossible by philosophical and scientific definitions. God on the other hand would be undefinable and likely impossible by scientific standards, having powers that come from nothing and supernatural and all.

Occam's razor would define the multiple universe theory as one with no impossible entities so it passes. There may be a whole heck of allot of these unobservable but possible entities, but they are all necessary to the theory and definable and therefore pass.

The God theory on the other hand, however simple, posits an entity that is so undefinable and impossible that despite having only one entity in it that single one gets it cut by Occam's razor.

Here we have a case of all things being equal in the sense that they are all unobservable. Never the less, they still have a standard by which they can be determined to have superfluous and not superfluous properties, and that's where Occam's razor cuts.

[sy2502]

Because of this, the theory that presupposes multiple universes actually has less to explain than the "God did it" idea because even though the multiple universes are unobservable they are not impossible by philosophical and scientific definitions.
The fact something is not philosophically or scientifically impossible doesn't necessarily mean it exists. I can suggest the existence of a planet entirely made of cookie dough, but the fact it's existence is scientifically possible doesn't mean its probability of existing is significant enough for you to believe it.

[militant agnostic]

Because of this, the theory that presupposes multiple universes actually has less to explain than the "God did it" idea because even though the multiple universes are unobservable they are not impossible by philosophical and scientific definitions.
The fact something is not philosophically or scientifically impossible doesn't necessarily mean it exists. I can suggest the existence of a planet entirely made of cookie dough, but the fact it's existence is scientifically possible doesn't mean its probability of existing is significant enough for you to believe it.

But you are missing my point. The first line of reasoning in Occam’s razor is "all things being equal". For this case we define equality regarding the question as a lack of observables. After that the only thing we can define about the validity of an entity is whether or not it is possible or logical by our domain of knowledge.

Multiple universes are mathematically definable, scientifically possible in many theories of the universe, and do not violate logic (at least anymore than anything else if you want to dissect the nature of its existence long enough).

God on the other hand is supernatural, practically indefinable, has elements to its existence that cannot be defined logically (even with many non supernatural definitions of God,) and by several of it's classical definitions invites practically infinite complexity.

We can simplify multiple universes even further by deciding that each one is not an entity in of it's self but rather state that since their existence is contingent on there being one physical law or property about existence that these (and our) universes exist in that they are all really just derivatives of that law. So all we really need to admit to is the existence of that law. Some proposed models of the universe actually give explanations of how that law works, i.e. brains slamming into each other, each area of the universe grows into a new one once the vacuum energy is completely even, etc. We end up with one entity.

[Kosh3]

Multiple universes are mathematically definable, scientifically possible in many theories of the universe, and do not violate logic (at least anymore than anything else if you want to dissect the nature of its existence long enough).

How many logically possible universes are there? Is there one, for instance, where a supermodel is about to knock on your front door and proposition you (that is, the 'you' of that universe)? Is there one where Osama bin Laden just climbed out of your couch, gasping for fresh air? Each situation, I take it, is logically possible. Are we committed then to saying, in the case that we think all logically possible universes really exist, that those situations obtain in those universes? Are we to actually believe in such universes, or simply formally, grudgingly accept them? Things are not so simple with multiverses.